rhubarb [he/him]

Both are organizations of the lumpenproletariat, and I do not believe he meant to call the Panthers a gang, but to ask why specifically do gangs lack revolutionary potential.

“powerful and real” here means “make me feel good”, which showcases the limits of liberal tolerance, they will tolerate the idea of us but hate our concrete existence outside their heads

Okay but quoting a Brit and putting [sic] after every British spelling is funny

Market gap idea for all the chapo chat entrepreneurs: a pride flag but the blue stripe is a thin blue line

Mainline SMT games are much bleaker than Persona games, and you are probably not going to enjoy them as much unless you specifically like the bleakness, although V and the Vengeance story both do a lot to make the bleakness more palatable later on. You might want to check out Metaphor Refantazio instead, it is almost comically Persona-like at times, though even more thematically confused.

Did you know that the floor selection buttons on elevators don’t actually do anything? They are there just to make the passengers feel like they are in control.

Tbh I’m not the biggest fan of how my neighbors installed a metal fence on their patio and now every flock of birds in town takes turns fighting a turf war against their own reflections

Yup, Lihuania, which is a NATO member whose invasion would require a naval supply line seems like the most likely target

WotC hire me and I will make you a constructed MTG format that does not suck absolute ass. It’s explorer or something, but each week the top 100 most used cards get banned for a month to force people to actually have fun.

I think other armies had caps with sunflaps that you could fold up when the sun wasn’t shining (or when you wanted to look more dignified in a photograph), not sure about helmets though.

I hate it when sci-fi doesn’t do anything interesting with aliens’ names, it’s always one alien civilization with a simplified version of the Arab naming system and the rest are all Borb Jorhnsons. Names could tell us so much about the current and past hierarchies in these societies, but no, they all had the exact same ideas about families as Europeans.

smdh Matt is such a fucking tailist

You yanks might not know it but if you have a foreskin you have to do this weekly

I’m a little ashamed to admit how much Northernilon’s real-life yassification after he got into exercise biking has motivated me to get back into shape

In this current crisis, what society really needs is another novel political identity, which is why I am proud to announce that you can now read all about Transhumanist Firetruck Socialism on my substack

The first one has a negligible 1.9 % more alcohol (assuming I typo’d nothing)

In Marxist dialectics, it is important to tolerate a sort of fuzzy middle ground between opposites (in this case the proletariat and the middle class). Here, the extreme ends of stock/home ownership land people solidly in either class, it would be ridiculous to claim that owning any stock at all makes you middle class, or that someone making most of their money from stocks is proletarian, but the middle is more unclear.

For most purposes an exact line does not need to be drawn because the object of study is not an individual, and doing that would introduce a seed of idealism. Around what part of the spectrum our vague idea of a line is located depends on our reason for doing the analysis.

For example, if we look at the evolution of American ideology, it would be fair to claim that owning significant assets makes people more receptive to middle-class and bourgeois ideas, and owning more probably makes you more receptive. Here it would likely be useful to call people owning significant assets middle class. On the other hand, if a party has a quota of a proportion of members who must be proletarian, it does not make sense to reject people based on the value of their home, so the same people who might have earlier been middle class are now, for this different purpose, considered proletarian.

First of all, historically the middle classes referred to the bourgeoisie who were in the middle compared to the landed aristocracy. Nowadays it means the petite bourgeoisie, e.g. small business owners, learned professionals, middle managers, who are in the middle compared to the bourgeoisie.

The idea that “the middle class doesn’t exist” is, as far as I know, a misunderstanding of Marxist class analysis. Marxist class analysis isn’t really about defining a label for each individual, and classes are often reabstracted, re-split from society, differently depending on the specific goal of the analysis. It is correct to say that “modern society consists of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (no middle class)” when it is appropriate for understanding some phenomenon, but incorrect to claim someone’s analysis is wrong because they used the concept of the middle class, or any class for that matter.

I work at a Sun Company help desk, and every day some genius calls in to complain that they have paid their Sun bill but aren’t getting any sunshine, and I have to troubleshoot their problem with my little script even though they all have the exact same problem, there are clouds in the way. Motherfucker what do you expect me to do about it, call the fucking Cloud Company.